|
VIRL has been released to the public. http://virl.cisco.com/
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 13:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
Not quite ready though! "While we migrate to our final software delivery infrastructure, there will be a one business day turnaround for Cisco to email you the image download directions." And I was all excited to mess around with it tonight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
BurgerQuest posted:Not quite ready though! It's pretty neat, and only going to get better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
freakazoid posted:Hey would appreciate a bit of help from any Cisco unity people have a Cisco Unity Box that is refusing to relay voice mail to to email, i.e the .WAV attachment to a email. On Unity Connection anyways, the box needs to know about your mail relay, then you configure the user's "corporate" email account on user settings. Then, in message actions, you can choose to relay or not. Presumably this is similar with on-box Unity itself, but we used Exchange for mail store and forwarded from there. But if you don't tell it to relay it certainly won't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
inignot posted:VIRL has been released to the public. It would be more useful to us if we could also emulate our layer 2 connections.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Are they missing the switching platforms? Or L2 features in general aren't emulated?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
I see mixed messages in the copy on the websites, switching is mentioned but I haven't jumped on any of their video guides yet. The download link was emailed out about an hour ago, it's 3.6gb and is crawling from here in Australia, ~120kbyte/s. I guess I'll try it tomorrow at this pace!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
falz posted:I was given this type of cable recently a d really like it. Is their active gear trustworthy? This would be going into production at a telco. Specifically http://www.fiberstore.com/sfp-to-sfp-10g-oeo-card-type-p-30515.html and http://www.fiberstore.com/multi-services-unified-platform-managed-chassis-for-10g-oeo-converters-p-14404.html Ugh, 220v or -48v only of course this is going into my only site that doesn't have 208v and -48v. I'd likely get all my optics from Fluxlight since they've been awesome so far. FatCow fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Nice. Telco with out 48V or 208.At least the latter should be doable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
Anyone here use a Lenovo Thinkpad T540p? I've been having a boatload of issues with our normal Prolific USB-to-Serial adapters and them blue screening my system after about 5 minutes of use.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Wicaeed posted:Anyone here use a Lenovo Thinkpad T540p?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
Wicaeed posted:Anyone here use a Lenovo Thinkpad T540p? Windows 7 or 8(.1)? I've had nothing but problems with Windows 8 and my PL adapters, but Windows 7 is fine. Some googling led me to believe that maybe my Prolifics are using counterfeit chips. I'm not sure if it's true or not. They work fine in OSX which is all I care about now :|
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
GOOCHY posted:It would be more useful to us if we could also emulate our layer 2 connections. So I bought it because I don't think I need to worry too much about testing l2 configs. You can do basic L2 connectivity/bridges between devices and it looks like sub-interfaces even retain tagging information. While you can't configure spanning tree or LACP you can at least provide l2 connectivity. A couple screwy things about the install. I had to manually configure NTP servers because it's pointing at Cisco internal servers and I had to make sure I connected the client to the proper host. Once I was through those issues it seems very usable. I think I prefer it to GNS3 even with the 15 device limitation/lack of a catalyst switch. There's an NX-OSv image in there but it's pretty limited.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
Are VPWS/VPLS features supported?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
ed Think that my DHCP pool is exhausted even though sh ip dhcp pool phone shows i should have a dozen IPs left available. No conflict logging either. Zuhzuhzombie!! fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
tortilla_chip posted:Are VPWS/VPLS features supported? It appears so! Pretty much anything you can do on a CSR 1000v appears to work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
L2IOU is referenced in the configuration files, presumably they weren't quite happy with the image to release it as a launch feature but it seems clear that it has been tested in VIRL. Whether we see it or not is another question, but I wouldn't be surprised if some intrepid tinkerer gets it working with the current VIRL release. Otherwise getting it up and running in VMWare Player was fairly straight forward, but there are an awful lot of steps to get through.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
This isn't a cisco thing but I didn't know where else to ask - can someone explain if there's a way to have multiple clients behind a NAT'd public IP connecting to the same VPN server at the same time without disconnecting eachother using L2TP/IPSec? I have a user yelling at me because apparently his collaborators have such a system that allows this but we do not. When I googled this it is apparently a limitation of the protocol (duplicate call/session ID on the encapsulation or somesuch). I'm using a Sonicwall NSA2400 L2TP over IPSec VPN server, and as it stands (even with NAT Traversal enabled), if I have two clients behind the same public IP on a remote NAT'd system the second will cause the first to disconnect. Am I missing some terribly simple checkbox somewhere or is it just the way it is?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Is your user actually technical or does he just hear the word VPN and assume they're all the same? I don't really know enough about L2TP/IPsec yet to comment but I know I can do what you're describing using SSLVPN on a Fortigate so maybe he's just assuming VPN = VPN?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Sonicwalls can do SSLVPN too, so the fix may be "easy."
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Inspector_666 posted:Sonicwalls can do SSLVPN too, so the fix may be "easy." Well I just tested the SSLVPN side with two clients, and I'm typing this here and able to ping things on my network so I guess it's working. Still, I'd like to understand the L2TP issue a little bit better. Our users are staunchly opposed to installing pretty much anything that I tell them to so those on Macs have enjoyed using the built-in l2tp client. That may change soon though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
NetExtender is the Sonicwall SSL VPN solution, and it's pretty bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Partycat posted:On Unity Connection anyways, the box needs to know about your mail relay, then you configure the user's "corporate" email account on user settings. Then, in message actions, you can choose to relay or not. Presumably this is similar with on-box Unity itself, but we used Exchange for mail store and forwarded from there. But if you don't tell it to relay it certainly won't. yeah not sure what was going on, but removed the corporate email address out of the users profile and it started working again, even thoe the same email address is entered into the relay address in the message actions. thanks for you help.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
Hopefully a simple question that Google isn't helping with. On a Cisco Catalyst 3750 each interface has a 1p3q2t QoS egress capability. I understand the priority (p) and queue (q) pieces, but what I don't understand are thresholds. There are two configurable thresholds and a third fixed threshold set to 100%. What is the point of having two configurable thresholds? I can understand why you would have one configurable threshold where you could set it to 80% for a specific queue and traffic will start dropping at that level, but what's the point of having a second configurable threshold?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
ed Got around to swapping out the Adtran for a Cisco 2800 with a T1 HWIC installed. T1 came up/up immediately, passed traffic, ping, no errors, etc. Looks like it is the Adtran. The Adtran installation that tipped of us off to start trouble shooting ended up being "fixed" by rolling the T1 pairs in the rj45. I've seen Adtrans come off assembly with hosed up manufacturing errors so I wonder if our field team got a bunch with bad interfaces or something. Zuhzuhzombie!! fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Dec 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
Anyone using Cisco NAC/ISE? How sad am I going to be if we look at implementing it for one of our clients?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Two probably dumb questions. I'm just dipping my toes into ASA so be gentle. "ping inside n.n.n.n" -- Does this ping n.n.n.n ON the internal interface or ORIGINATING from the internal interface? Aside from using ASDM to packet trace, is there any way I can ping an IP while passing through zones, such that the relevant ACLs are applied. So I guess I'd like to ping 8.8.8.8 from an internal interface. and: If I use packet tracer in ASDM, does it actually send the packet in question, or is it only doing a simulation? some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:Looks like it is the Adtran. The Adtran installation that tipped of us off to start trouble shooting ended up being "fixed" by rolling the T1 pairs in the rj45. I've seen Adtrans come off assembly with hosed up manufacturing errors so I wonder if our field team got a bunch with bad interfaces or something. What model Adtran? Because a bunch of the Adtran stuff designed for voice service has rolled T1 interfaces for PRI service, but can also be configured for T1/ISDN data service. (IE Total Access 900 series has rolled originating DSX ports, but the 900e series are not swapped because they're T1 data CPE ports)
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Two probably dumb questions. I'm just dipping my toes into ASA so be gentle. Martytoof posted:and:
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
This isn't a Cisco question but hopefully it's okay to ask here as this is the closest thing to a network thread I can find. I have Dell Force10 S4810Ps and am looking to connect a HP server to it using SFP+ DACs, is this going to be doable? I can't seem to find any compatibility information for either, just part numbers for each companies respective DACs
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
theperminator posted:This isn't a Cisco question but hopefully it's okay to ask here as this is the closest thing to a network thread I can find. I had thought there was an enterprise networking thread but did not find one in my travels. If someone wants to point out the fact I am blind and point me in the direction of one that would be amazing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:What model Adtran? Because a bunch of the Adtran stuff designed for voice service has rolled T1 interfaces for PRI service, but can also be configured for T1/ISDN data service. (IE Total Access 900 series has rolled originating DSX ports, but the 900e series are not swapped because they're T1 data CPE ports) 900e
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
funk_mata posted:Hopefully a simple question that Google isn't helping with. I think it has to do with the size of the buffer allocated to the queue. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/switches/catalyst-3750-series-switches/116102-qanda-egress-00.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Richard Noggin posted:I think it has to do with the size of the buffer allocated to the queue. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/switches/catalyst-3750-series-switches/116102-qanda-egress-00.html Thanks for the article. It pointed me in the right direction and I found a blog post that confirmed I was looking at thresholds incorrectly. My original thought process was: "A traffic class (DSCP) is both assigned to a queue and given three drop thresholds (two configurable and one set to 100%)." In reality the answer is: "A traffic class (DSCP) is assigned to a queue and is also assigned to one of the three drop thresholds given to that queue." Which makes more sense. Here's the article if you're interested http://reggle.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/qos-part-v-hardware-queues-on-35603750-switch-platform/
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Does anyone have any experience with either Brocade VCS fabric or Juniper QFabric? We're trying to decide between the two for a core upgrade, and I wanted to get the opinion of anyone with it currently in production. Any quirks or caveats to be aware of going into this, or do they just work?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
theperminator posted:This isn't a Cisco question but hopefully it's okay to ask here as this is the closest thing to a network thread I can find. It won't be validated by either vendor but no reason why it wouldn't work. Most cables are all OEM'd from the same vendors anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
TheGreenBandit posted:Does anyone have any experience with either Brocade VCS fabric or Juniper QFabric? We're trying to decide between the two for a core upgrade, and I wanted to get the opinion of anyone with it currently in production. Any quirks or caveats to be aware of going into this, or do they just work? Take a lonnnng look at the buffer architecture on the VDX line and make sure it will fit your needs. Basically the entire buffer is split into per port buffers which are then split into per COS buffers 100% statically. So while the 6730 has 4MByte of receive buffers total on the chassis, no tx buffers. It is split into ~144kByte per port, of which 141kByte can be assigned to a single COS pool. We were overrunning that on servers doing ~100-200Mbit because of microbursts. We had to enable flow control on the VDXs to prevent our hypervisors from losing their poo poo. Needless to say when it came time to do another site I quoted Nexus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
theperminator posted:This isn't a Cisco question but hopefully it's okay to ask here as this is the closest thing to a network thread I can find. That should work, at my old place we used that same switch with Elpeus brand cables. http://www.colfaxdirect.com/store/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=1677&idcategory=2
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
FatCow posted:Is their active gear trustworthy? This would be going into production at a telco.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
So, it's been a little while. Has anyone done anything interesting in VIRL worth mentioning yet? I've been too caught up in handover after resigning to take another look after setting it up and getting two routers to ping each other.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 11:35
|
|